«

This may seem like a silly question of which I already feel like I
know the answer... I am a web developer and I am working with a
Content Manager... I am trying to convince him why he should validate
all of the html code that he writes as he publishes content to his
Company's Site. This could be done by running pages through HTML
Validator or HTML Tidy. He feels that if his pages render as he would
expect through Firefox and IE, even if there are some missing closing
tags or deprecated tags... that at least the browsers are forgiving
enough so that it will not affect the presentation. He feels that
validating the code will actually slow down his development and
deployment time of content.

I argue that it is really a method of best practices and it will
further ensure the integrity of the code that it will work in an
optimum inter operable way between OS's and different Browser Types
for generations to come. I also argue that it should actually speed up
development and deployment of content time because these tools can act
as a pointer when your design is broken and you don't know why. I am
looking to produce a more robust argument in order to get him on side.

Can anyone out there give me other valid reasons that I can take back
to him?

newspost2000 wrote:
> This may seem like a silly question of which I already feel like I
> know the answer... I am a web developer and I am working with a
> Content Manager... I am trying to convince him why he should validate
> all of the html code that he writes as he publishes content to his
> Company's Site. This could be done by running pages through HTML
> Validator or HTML Tidy. He feels that if his pages render as he would
> expect through Firefox and IE, even if there are some missing closing
> tags or deprecated tags... that at least the browsers are forgiving
> enough so that it will not affect the presentation. He feels that
> validating the code will actually slow down his development and
> deployment time of content.
>
> I argue that it is really a method of best practices and it will
> further ensure the integrity of the code that it will work in an
> optimum inter operable way between OS's and different Browser Types
> for generations to come. I also argue that it should actually speed up
> development and deployment of content time because these tools can act
> as a pointer when your design is broken and you don't know why. I am
> looking to produce a more robust argument in order to get him on side.
>
> Can anyone out there give me other valid reasons that I can take back
> to him?
>

Might want to take a look at this:

http://validator.w3.org/docs/why.html

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
If you can survive death, you can probably survive anything.

> Might want to take a look at this:
>
> http://validator.w3.org/docs/why.html
>
"The strawman argument 'Validation means boring websites, and stifles
creativity' / This is simply head-in-the-sand ignorance (indeed, it lies
at the heart of the most spectacular hype-filled dot-com failures)."

Which dot-com? What failure?

newspost2000 wrote:

> Can anyone out there give me other valid reasons that I can take back
> to him?

Depending on contracts, he may not get fully payed if his code is broken, no
matter how cool he does think he is.


--

//Aho

On 2007-02-01, newspost2000 <> wrote:
[snip]
> He feels that validating the code will actually slow down his
> development and deployment time of content.

This is where he's most wrong. Suppose he leaves out a close tag, or
puts one too many. The browser he's testing on politely produces some
sort of document tree without telling him there's anything wrong. It
guesses his intentions using crude heuristics and may be wrong. He
thinks he's looking at one document tree, in fact he is looking at
another. The rendering doesn't look quite how he intended it to, so he
starts fiddling with the styles to get it right. He infers from what he
sees a mistaken understanding of the box model that follows him around.
Errors and confusion multiply and propagate.

Catching as many errors as you can as early as you can is the only way
to do anything on a computer. Anyone will tell you that.

Harlan Messinger wrote:
>> Might want to take a look at this:
>>
>> http://validator.w3.org/docs/why.html
>>
> "The strawman argument 'Validation means boring websites, and stifles
> creativity' / This is simply head-in-the-sand ignorance (indeed, it lies
> at the heart of the most spectacular hype-filled dot-com failures)."
>
> Which dot-com? What failure?

Yeah, it would be nice to know what the writer had in mind. Although he
(they) did use the plural, failures, so maybe it was intended as a
general statement.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
You can't trust dogs to watch your food.

"newspost2000" <> wrote:

>Can anyone out there give me other valid reasons that I can take back
>to him?
Does he use a spell checker? If so, why bother if it looks OK to him?
If not, show him the spelling errors and point out that his work may
be judged accordingly.

newspost2000 wrote:

> He feels that if his pages render as he would expect through Firefox and
> IE

Firefox 2, perhaps, but Firefox 3 is just around the corner. Microsoft
have hinted that there will be an IE8, though probably not for some time.

Alternatively, you could build some sort of clean-up filter into the CMS.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Geek of ~ HTML/CSS/Javascript/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python*/Apache/Linux

* = I'm getting there!

On Feb 1, 7:28 pm, "newspost2000" <newspost2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This may seem like a silly question of which I already feel like I
> know the answer... I am a web developer and I am working with a
> Content Manager... I am trying to convince him why he should validate
> all of the html code that he writes as he publishes content to his
> Company's Site.

Why is the Content Manager writing HTML in the first place? The tools
he's been provided with by the site developers to help him manage
content should have been configured to only create valid HTML anyway.

Steve

On 1 Feb, 19:28, "newspost2000" <newspost2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I am a web developer and I am working with a
> Content Manager...

I do wonder why a "content manager" even needs to care. Shouldn't they
be worrying about content, and having a CMS take care of the
implementation details like this?

> I am trying to convince him why he should validate
> all of the html code that he writes

The W3C list is a good starting point.

HTML / CSS design is hard. It's hard to make it work correctly when
it's valid, even though it's quite well defined how the tools and
browsers ought to behave. In contrast it's _not_ defined how they
should behave with invalid code, so it's even harder to make things
work this way. Valid code is an objective standard starting point for
worrying about rendering.


> He feels that if his pages render as he would
> expect through Firefox and IE, even if there are some missing closing
> tags or deprecated tags... that at least the browsers are forgiving

They're forgiving, but not predictably forgiving. In many (most?)
cases, they both have correct and identical behaviours with valid
code, but varying error corrections after error. How can he possibly
have _both_ "render as expected" in this case?

> He feels that
> validating the code will actually slow down his development

Valid code is faster to author and deploy. Testing validity is a
simple and objective test, easily carried out automatically. User
testing under a variety of browsers is anything but.